Author
Topic: Coptic Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox (Read 27263 times)

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but what is this difference between Coptic Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox? I know the Eastern and Coptic Orthodox churches have been out of communion for a few years (actually 1700 years), but what exactly separates us? I know the Eastern Orthodox church teaches Jesus was both God and man and I've heard the Coptic Church teaches that He was just God. Then I talked to a Coptic Christian and he said they did believe that Christ was both God and man. He said the only thing that separates us is agreement on the ecumenical councils. Could someone clarify this?

The Coptic Orthodox Church is part of the Oriental Orthodox Church ("OO.") You might want to look at reply #15 of the following thread to get a basic idea of who we are in contrast to the Eastern Orthodox ("EO."):

The Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Indian and Syriac Churches did not accept the Council of Chalcedon (known as the Fourth Ecumenical Council to the Eastern Orthodox.) Our Churches are known as "Oriental Orthodox," sometimes abbreviated as "OO." Sometimes we are called "Non-Chalcedonian." We reject being called "Monophysite," because it implies beliefs about Christ's nature which we don't hold.

We accept three Ecumenical Councils and believe that Christ has one nature, which is fully divine and fully human. In other words, when we say Christ has one nature, we don't mean a numerical one, but rather a united one in the sense that His divinity and humanity are united in one Person. The reason we did not accept Chalcedon had to do with fears that it's language might support a heresy called Nestorianism.

The Churches you are in communion with (Greek, Russian, Georgian, Serbian, etc.) are "Eastern Orthodox," abbreviated here as "EO." These Churches accept seven councils as being ecumenical, including the Council of Chalcedon. They believe that Christ has two natures, one of them divine and the other human.

Many theologians have come to the conclusion that we both believe the same thing about Christ. In other words, they say the real difference is in the language we use. However, we are not in communion for various reasons, many of them historical.

As I said, that is a gross oversimplification. However, I think it gives the basics about who we are.

You may want to look through different threads in this section, to get a better idea of who we are.

Brother this may be true but if you look at the OO they actually still contain in their tradition praxis which was discussed at the 7 ecumenical councils, for instance the OO use icons in their worship and have beautiful iconography but they do not have a council which allowed it.

Oh yes, i know full well that the OO have icons. The 7th Ecumenical council ofcourse did not sanction or 'allow' the use of icons, but simply acknowledged the fact that they have always been part of the Tradition of the Church and condemned the iconoclasts.

The difference between the EO and the OO is that the definition of Chalcedon is a compromise of Antiochan and Alexandrian theologies against Eutyches. Its in accordance with Pope Leo's Tome, but the definition is not based on it, its influenced by St Cyril's epistle to John of Antioch in the formula of reunion (among other variables). Orthodoxy believes the two natures are inseperable but distinct whereas the OO does not emphasize the distinction of the natures. Likewise the Assyrian Church emphasises their distinction but does not emphasis there inseperability.

Oh yes, i know full well that the OO have icons. The 7th Ecumenical council ofcourse did not sanction or 'allow' the use of icons, but simply acknowledged the fact that they have always been part of the Tradition of the Church and condemned the iconoclasts.

The difference between the EO and the OO is that the definition of Chalcedon is a compromise of Antiochan and Alexandrian theologies against Eutyches. Its in accordance with Pope Leo's Tome, but the definition is not based on it, its influenced by St Cyril's epistle to John of Antioch in the formula of reunion (among other variables). Orthodoxy believes the two natures are inseperable but distinct whereas the OO does not emphasize the distinction of the natures. Likewise the Assyrian Church emphasises their distinction but does not emphasis there inseperability.

That is what at most can be said about the OO, that they do not emphasis the distinction and emphasis their inseperability. They do believe in the distinction, however.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Oh yes, i know full well that the OO have icons. The 7th Ecumenical council ofcourse did not sanction or 'allow' the use of icons, but simply acknowledged the fact that they have always been part of the Tradition of the Church and condemned the iconoclasts.

The difference between the EO and the OO is that the definition of Chalcedon is a compromise of Antiochan and Alexandrian theologies against Eutyches. Its in accordance with Pope Leo's Tome, but the definition is not based on it, its influenced by St Cyril's epistle to John of Antioch in the formula of reunion (among other variables). Orthodoxy believes the two natures are inseperable but distinct whereas the OO does not emphasize the distinction of the natures. Likewise the Assyrian Church emphasises their distinction but does not emphasis there inseperability.

Actually we do emphasize the distinction. it is written in our liturgies and hymns that we believe in humanity and divinity without mingling, confusion, or alterations of either of the two, but we do say "One Incarnate Nature." It has been heavily emphasized by many of our historical theologians like the common saint among the Orthodox St. Cyril and the OO St. Severus when both were being accused of not emphasizing the distinction. In fact, they emphasized the distinction, but are always careful to say without separation, without making two natures seem like "two persons" to whom they were writing against.

God bless.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2008, 07:08:04 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Yeah but what does that one mean. Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Three different person yet one God. Why can't we be EO, OO yet one church. Two different persons yet one Church. Working together.

Two different persons yet one church(Body) is a form of neo-nestorianism, neither side would ever accept this "China" formula (reminds me of taiwan- 2 governments, one country formula). Unity is based on the partaking of the Communion Of the Holy EUCHARIST. Prerequiste is a common faith , one heart and one mind.

To best understand the subtle differences between the Chalcedonian definition with that of the OO and the Assyrian Church, best is to read the agreed upon statements made by the RC church with the Copts and the other agreed upon statements the RC have made with the Assyrians. Both statements can be said to be Orthodox (for the EO) but probably will raise objections amongst the OO and the Assyrians when these same agreements are compared to each other.

There is a different emphasis stressed. The OO insist on emphasizing the inseperability of the two natures, making no mention of two natures after the union, instead they accept the distinction but this is downplayed.

The Assyrians on the other hand insist on emphasizing the distinction of the two natures while downplaying there inseperability. They believe in the inseperability but dont stress its importance.

Orthodoxy is a compromise - the Chalcedonian definition which places both these elements: "without seperation" and "the distinction of natures beng in no way annulled" on equal footing.

Once again to see these differences, examine agreed statements by Chalcedonians made with Both Assyrians and OO and how these statements differ with each other when compared side by side.

Could you do me a big favor for the sake of academic discussion on this thread? When you speak of [Chalcedonian] Orthodoxy, could you please use language that assumes that the Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox by qualifying your use of the words Orthodoxy and Orthodox with such adjectives as Eastern or Chalcedonian? You're free to personally not believe the OO to be fully Orthodox, which could be the subject of a very fruitful thread on the Private EO-OO Forum, but, at least for the sake of public discussion, language that places the EO and OO on equal footing is an excellent way to keep this thread and discussions on this public board respectful and diplomatic.

Indeed, I agree with Peter that the polemical language used here might turn into something best fit for the private forums. I will stress however to answer the original post that despite the idea that OO's downplay the distinction, we in fact have condemned Eutychianists for their confusion. OO's held an "ecumenical-like" council in Ephesus in the year 475 condemning any form of Eutychian beliefs.

Later, we understand St. Severus of Antioch condemning his own friend Julian of semi-docetist beliefs. The reality of humanity and its distinction from the divinity was just as serious a teaching in our Church as the inseparability.

I suggest the objective reading of history, both EO and OO sources to understand perhaps the cultural and ecumenical differences between the two, but I am of the belief that in the dogmas of Orthodoxy, there is no difference.

I also would like to redraw your attention to some of the liturgical evidence Copts use that I provided earlier that stresses the distinction very clearly.

God bless.

« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 02:57:27 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Could you do me a big favor for the sake of academic discussion on this thread? When you speak of [Chalcedonian] Orthodoxy, could you please use language that assumes that the Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox by qualifying your use of the words Orthodoxy and Orthodox with such adjectives as Eastern or Chalcedonian? You're free to personally not believe the OO to be fully Orthodox, which could be the subject of a very fruitful thread on the Private EO-OO Forum, but, at least for the sake of public discussion, language that places the EO and OO on equal footing is an excellent way to keep this thread and discussions on this public board respectful and diplomatic.

- Peter

buzuxi,

I'm a bit more liberal than the others in my moderating and I've never required a poster to use "Orthodox" when referring to both sides. If you don't believe us to be Orthodox, I'm not going to make you call us such, as long as you are otherwise polite and as long as you avoid pejoratives.

However, if this turns into a polemical debate about Chalcedon and whether the OO position is orthodox, etc., it will have to go into the private forum. The original post asked a basic question about who the Copts were. I don't think the poster wanted a debate. If you want a debate, that's O.K. but it should be in a different thread and the safest place to post it would be in the private forum, as you and others can go "all out" there. If you don't have access to the private forum, pm Fr. Chris and he'll let you in. It's an interesting place and you can express yourself fully with regard to Chalcedon and us OO's.

I just want to clarify what i said by quoting a portion of the common christological statements the RC (Chalcedonian) have made with the OO (non-Chalcedon) and the common statement the RC have made with the Assyrians (non-ephesian but pro- Chalcedonian).

This shows what each community emphasizes and what they may find objectionable with each other. Chalcedonian Orthodoxy takes Antiochan thought which stressed the humanity of Christ and Alexandrian thought which stressed the divinity of Christ and from this arose the definition of Chalcedon, being against both extremes of Eutyches and Nestorius.

Here is the common statement between the RC and the Assyrians (found on the Assyrian church website):

..."Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things except sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person without confusion or change, without division or seperation. IN HIM HAS BEEN PRESERVED THE DIFFERENCE OF THE NATURES OF DIVINITY AND HUMANITY, WITH ALL THEIR PROPERTIES, FACULTIES AND OPERATIONS. But far from constituting one and another the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ who is the object of a single adoration."

Now here is the 1973 common statement between the RC and the Coptic Church (found on the Syrac Oriental Orthodox website):

"....We confess that our Lord and God and Savior and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to his divinity and perfect man with respect to His humanity. In him his divinity is united with his humanity in a real and perfect union without mingling without confusion without alteration without division without seperation. His divinity did not seperate from his humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible, became visible in the flesh and took upon himself the form of a servant. IN HIM ARE PRESERVED ALL THE PROPERTIES OF THE DIVINITY AND ALL THE PROPERTIES OF HIS HUMANITY, TOGETHER IN A REAL PERFECT INDIVISIBLE AND INSEPERABLE UNION."

See the difference? One attempts at preserving the distinction of the 2 natures of the one Christ (assyrians) while the other attempts to preserve the oneness of those two natures. In the Assyrian statement one can 'categorize ' various acts of Christ as belonging to his human or divine nature, while in the OO statement it simply is the one Christ acting. The OO statement is more Orthodox, we should not divide his works as if Christ is bi-polar -instead they simply belong to the one cohesive person who is Christ, on the other hand, theologically we fail miserably at such an attempt.

For Christ went voluntarily to the cross. Doesnt 'voluntarily' imply free human will as did when Christ prayed, "Father if thou be willing, remove this cup from me nevertheless not my will, but thine be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven strengthening Him."(Lk 22.42-43). And isnt the Feast of the Transfiguration the commemoration of a metamorphosis of his Divinity to three apostles who visibly always say him as mere man ?

I just want to clarify what i said by quoting a portion of the common christological statements the RC (Chalcedonian) have made with the OO (non-Chalcedon) and the common statement the RC have made with the Assyrians (non-ephesian but pro- Chalcedonian).

I was not offended, buzuxi, as I believe it was and is your intention to discuss this politely. In fact, I am impressed by your willingness to say that the Church of the East is pro-Chalcedon. Many EO's and RC's I've dealt with don't feel comfortable with that assertion.

My only concern is where this may lead. Your post above can invite debate. Some OO's for example, could take issue with your third paragraph and question whether the original intent of those who convened Chalcedon was to balance the two Christologies. Some RC's or EO's, on the other hand, may take issue with your assertion that the Assyrians are pro-Chalcedon. For that reason, I am tempted to move this to the private forum.

We'll see where it goes. As I said earlier, if it goes into a debate, I'll move it. Actually, I don't think the subject of the common christological statements has been discussed or debated in the private forum. This would be something new down there.

My only concern is where this may lead. Your post above can invite debate. Some OO's for example, could take issue with your third paragraph and question whether the original intent of those who convened Chalcedon was to balance the two Christologies. Some RC's or EO's, on the other hand, may take issue with your assertion that the Assyrians are pro-Chalcedon. For that reason, I am tempted to move this to the private forum.

It's precisely this part that has me biting my tongue. We discussed this many times before. It is a debatable issue whether Chalcedon was a synthesis of the two schools of thought or not. Some people do not talk about Chalcedon alone, but along with Constantinople 553 that would show a synthesis of the two schools. But Chalcedon alone is where lies the debate.

God bless.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

It's precisely this part that has me biting my tongue. We discussed this many times before. It is a debatable issue whether Chalcedon was a synthesis of the two schools of thought or not. Some people do not talk about Chalcedon alone, but along with Constantinople 553 that would show a synthesis of the two schools. But Chalcedon alone is where lies the debate.

God bless.

Yeah, I get the feeling that at least a few people here are biting their tongues and wanting to discuss this in more depth. I want to thank everyone for their remarkable self control thus far.

What I am going to do is lock this topic and start a new discussion on the common christological statements in the private forum. I figure the original question has been answered and any further discussion is of a nature that is better suited there. Anyone without access to the private forums can join by pm-ing Fr. Chris.